Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The ALJ is required to make credibility determinations about allegations of pain or other nonexertional disabilities. See Hammond v.
Heckler, 765 F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir. 1985). Such decisions must refer
specifically to the evidence informing the ALJ's conclusions. Id. In
this case, the ALJ conducted the proper analysis in a comprehensive
fashion and cited substantial evidence to support his finding.
The ALJ noted that Davis's daily activities, infrequent medical
attention, and treatment for relief of pain did not support Davis's
claims of disabling pain and fatigue. For instance, Davis testified to
substantial daily activities during the relevant time period. In addition,
Davis was able to walk without an assistive device, she did not rely
on pain medication or other treatment, and she did not return to her
doctor for medical attention until 1978. Because the ALJ listed a specific evidentiary basis for the determination that Davis was not credible, the ALJ was justified in discounting Davis's complaints of pain
and fatigue.
Davis also argues that the ALJ contradicted himself and asked
improper hypothetical questions of the vocational expert, when he
presented one scenario that incorporated Davis's subjective complaints and one that did not. The ALJ's questions were entirely
proper. By presenting a hypothetical, the ALJ was not making findings of fact. After the hearing, the ALJ determined that the scenario
which did not contain Davis's testimony about disabling fatigue and
pain before 1973 most closely fit the evidence of record.
Given the medical evidence, the properly supported credibility
determination that Davis's condition was not as severe as claimed, the
testimony of the vocational expert, and the other relevant evidence of
record, we find that the Commissioner's decision was supported by
substantial evidence. See Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th
Cir. 1990) (standard of review). We, therefore, affirm. We deny
Appellant's motion to file an attachment to her brief, because the evidence offered was not submitted below. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3